Quatloos!

At first glance an ageing hippy with her less than impressive list of purported credentials:

Among other things, the 61-year-old Vernon woman advertises herself as a metaphysician, reflexologist, bio-genisist, emotional freedom therapist, gem therapist, and holistic pet therapist.

She also claims to have a bachelor of science degree, a bachelor of arts degree, a bachelor of education degree, a certificate in basic kinesiology practice, and a doctorate in metaphysical sciences. (I was unable to verify any of these credentials).

Stancer and her husband, Malcolm Stancer, also claim to have been ordained as ministers by the Arcadian Society, which bills itself as "a private, non-profit, philosophical society in the service of humanity."

The Arcadian Society, in turn, appointed them as overseers of the Serenity Bound Society, whose stated mission is to advance the practice of kinesiology.

Then we get to the sovereign gibberish:

The Serenity Bound Society's articles of incorporation include Stancer's declaration that she is a "global being and not subject to any nationalistic state."

She also declares that she is not a Canadian citizen or taxpayer, rather she is a "stateless natural person" whose "only allegiance is the Eternal Source from whence I came."

She further asserts that any remuneration she receives, whether or not it is paid in her name, belongs to the society and is "exempt from claim by any taxing authority."

At least she is doing it with peace and love from a up-scale town rather than a Dennys in Montana.

Second half of article on an unrelated topic.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Ve ... z2LkILmYU3

Doesn't get any more lovely then a hot, Dennys coffee when it's -15F outside.

She also claims to have a bachelor of science degree, a bachelor of arts degree, a bachelor of education degree, a certificate in basic kinesiology practice, and a doctorate in metaphysical sciences.

And she can draw a pirate real good according to the Art Instruction School.

Our holistic sovereign tax evader has finally been charged. She, and her partner, are charged with filing false income tax returns on behalf of an unspecified number of clients that the Canada Revenue Agency claims included $191 million in false expenses. It appears their scheme was a bust with only $53 thousand of the claimed $10 Million in refunds paid out. The article describing all this (below) doesn't explain the point I find most interesting; how the claimed expenses would have triggered refunds of only 5% of the expense amounts. Only thing I can think of is that her clients claimed expenses well in excess of their reported income. Stupid if correct since we don't have your OID system (or whatever it is you Americans have, never figured it out, something to do with interest) that allows refunds in excess of taxes actually paid. All that going into negative territory does is get the CRA interested in you.

This isn't a first time for Stancer. She already has a conviction on exactly the same offense back in 1989 which our "give everybody a second chance" government pardoned. She must have taken that as an endorsement of her scam.

The article also gives a Porisky update. Eight more British Columbia residents have recently been charged with tax evasion after following Porisky's moronic "natural person" method. Since the government has so far had a 100% conviction rate in Porisky cases their chances look pretty bleak. Their best approach is probably to look like morons in court and hope the judge has sympathy. However nobody can look dumber than Turnnir did (the subject of my very first posting, link below) and it got him nowhere, I await the trials with interest although I expect plea bargaining.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7827

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Pa ... story.html

A bankruptcy discharge application and order by what appears to be the same individual is reported as:

Stancer (Re), 2012 BCSC 1533 : http://canlii.ca/t/ft9nt

Interestingly, the Master who reviewed this application has characterized the bankrupt as engaged in OPCA litigation strategies (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571) that impeded discharge of the bankruptcy (para. 32), however that was not a basis to further delay discharge (para. 44) given the circumstances of the bankrupt.

In passing, I am long time reader, and first time participant. On behalf of the many persons whom I suspect skulk on these forums, the efforts of the Quatloos community are very appreciated.

SMS Möwe

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote:A bankruptcy discharge application and order by what appears to be the same individual is reported as:

Stancer (Re), 2012 BCSC 1533 : http://canlii.ca/t/ft9nt

Interestingly, the Master who reviewed this application has characterized the bankrupt as engaged in OPCA litigation strategies (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571) that impeded discharge of the bankruptcy (para. 32), however that was not a basis to further delay discharge (para. 44) given the circumstances of the bankrupt.

In passing, I am long time reader, and first time participant. On behalf of the many persons whom I suspect skulk on these forums, the efforts of the Quatloos community are very appreciated.

SMS Möwe

Thanks, David Baines didn't report on that. The judge seems to have discharged for two reasons, futility, since they apparently have no assets to seize, and because he seems tired of having to deal with endless, and pointless, hearings. The bank seems to have just given up too.

So Stancer finally ended this self-inflicted problem just in time to get hit by criminal charges for counselling others to defraud the government, filing false tax returns on behalf of clients, and making false or deceptive statements in her 2007 and 2010 income tax returns. I'm still having trouble with the numbers however. From the article:

Stancer has also been charged with making false or deceptive statements in her 2007 and 2010 income tax returns. She allegedly claimed $1.86 million in bogus capital and business losses to obtain $62,980 in refunds she was not entitled to.

That implies a tax rate of about only 4%. Since there is no chance she reported income anywhere near the magnitude of the claimed deductions I'm assuming overkill on her part in claiming expenses well over what she needed to get her taxes back. But if she had enough income to pay $62,980 in taxes why was she discharged from bankruptcy? As I said, the trial will be interesting.

Burnaby49 wrote:From the article:

Stancer has also been charged with making false or deceptive statements in her 2007 and 2010 income tax returns. She allegedly claimed $1.86 million in bogus capital and business losses to obtain $62,980 in refunds she was not entitled to.

That implies a tax rate of about only 4%. Since there is no chance she reported income anywhere near the magnitude of the claimed deductions I'm assuming overkill on her part in claiming expenses well over what she needed to get her taxes back. But if she had enough income to pay $62,980 in taxes why was she discharged from bankruptcy?

In the US, claims for refunds might be based upon estimated taxes paid (for which the IRS would have records), but are more often based on Forms W-2, which are filed with the Social Security administration and not the IRS, and so the IRS often issues refunds based on forms filed with the individual's income tax returns which the IRS cannot immediately verify. It's not that difficult to prepare and file a tax return with a fabricated Form W-2 that shows taxes withheld that should now be "refunded."

Peter Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" scam is based upon Forms 4852 which falsely report the amount of income earned but correctly report the amounts of taxes withheld. Other scammers are not so scrupulous.

I'm just sayin'.

LPC wrote:

Burnaby49 wrote:From the article:

Stancer has also been charged with making false or deceptive statements in her 2007 and 2010 income tax returns. She allegedly claimed $1.86 million in bogus capital and business losses to obtain $62,980 in refunds she was not entitled to.

That implies a tax rate of about only 4%. Since there is no chance she reported income anywhere near the magnitude of the claimed deductions I'm assuming overkill on her part in claiming expenses well over what she needed to get her taxes back. But if she had enough income to pay $62,980 in taxes why was she discharged from bankruptcy?

In the US, claims for refunds might be based upon estimated taxes paid (for which the IRS would have records), but are more often based on Forms W-2, which are filed with the Social Security administration and not the IRS, and so the IRS often issues refunds based on forms filed with the individual's income tax returns which the IRS cannot immediately verify. It's not that difficult to prepare and file a tax return with a fabricated Form W-2 that shows taxes withheld that should now be "refunded."

Peter Hendrickson's "Cracking the Code" scam is based upon Forms 4852 which falsely report the amount of income earned but correctly report the amounts of taxes withheld. Other scammers are not so scrupulous.

I'm just sayin'.

In Canada all tax returns and tax payments are filed with the Canada Revenue Agency which checks your account before issuing a refund. Payments made to cover an individual's Canada Pension Plan obligations (our equivalent to your Social Security) are also paid to the CRA and recorded to the taxpayer's single account. If your refund request for a specific tax year is greater than the amount of tax already credited as being paid into your account for that year the computer kicks it out for a manual check before a refund is issued. So, unlike your system, there is no uncertainty about taxes possibly paid elsewhere or estimated amounts since all taxes are paid to, and recorded to, a single account.

Stancer claimed purported fraudulent capital losses and income losses. In Canada capital losses can only be applied against reported capital gains so if you declare gains and losses from various capital transactions during the year the claimed losses will only offset your reported gains. If, as a result, the net gain is reduced to zero with losses still not applied they can't be used against other income and they just sit there to be applied against reported gains in future years. Same with business expenses. You can claim a loss in the year based on expenses but all you will get out of it is the taxes already paid or a claim of nil taxes owed in the year. Any losses in excess of taking you to nothing owing have to wait for income in future years to offset. In both capital and business loss claims you can't get a refund for money in excess of the amount actually recorded as having been already paid. So I assume that if Stancer got a $62,980 refund this was actually money she had paid the CRA and was getting back. This would explain the trivial size of the refund compared to the claimed losses because once enough losses had been applied to bring her taxes owing to $0 the rest of the claimed losses would be useless. $1,000,000 or $10,000,000, so what? At our tax rates a loss of, at most, say $300,000 would have triggered the $63,000 refund.

This is what has confused me in some of the threads on this site. I read about some clown with a trivial income filing some documents with the IRS and geting a huge refund of money he never paid in the first place. Obviously it can be done and seems to be a big problem for you but how it works is a mystery to me because I don't know your laws and there is no Canadian analogy. We have no equivalent to your Forms W-2, 1099-OID, or 4852. All income amounts and taxes paid for an employee are recorded on one form, the T-4, and all investment amounts are on the T-5. Taxpayers can't ammend or revise these even if they are in error.

Some Canadians have received false refunds on taxes not paid but only by screwing you Americans. To quote Wikipedia:

1099 OID fraud is a common scam used to obtain false refunds from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS).[1] People have claimed refunds based on the theory that the U.S. federal government maintains secret accounts for U.S. citizens and that taxpayers can gain access to the accounts by issuing 1099-OID forms to the IRS.[2]

Ronald L Brekke of Orange County, California, was convicted on March 17, 2012, in federal court in Seattle, Washington, of conspiracy and wire fraud in which 1,000 people, most of them Canadian, filed fraudulent U.S. tax refund claims with the IRS. The scam totaled $763 million, but the IRS paid out only $14 million. Mr. Brekke received $400 thousand from his clients.

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote:In passing, I am long time reader, and first time participant.

UMLAUT He's got an UMLAUT

Umlaut, schmumlaut. He's got a Hilfskreuzer.

Too bad about Scapa Flow, but welcome to Quatloos.

AndyK wrote:UMLAUT He's got an UMLAUT

Thëÿ’rë cöntägïöüs, dön’t ÿöü knöw!

wserra wrote:Umlaut, schmumlaut. He's got a Hilfskreuzer.

Too bad about Scapa Flow, but welcome to Quatloos.

Actually, the Möwe, a World War I auxiliary cruiser, survived the First World War and came within a month of surviving the Second World War before being sunk by the British off the coast of Norway,

So, he's subject to Admiralty Law then?

Thanks for the welcome, folks!

I thought the alias would be appropriate given the both piratical and nautical (or Admiralty) themes of this forum. And I’ve always found the entire commerce raider concept rather fun.

ArthurWankspittle’s observation is actually rather intriguing in a historic sense. Betraying one of my brands of nerdiness, I am currently reading “Planning Armageddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War”, by Nicholas Lambert. This book reviews how the Royal Navy had put in place a scheme to exploit the fact that at the time about 70% of world civilian shipping was British, and that Britain had a pretty much exclusive hold on key marine communication processes such as shipping insurance, and commercial international banking. If the scheme had been executed (which it wasn’t), the British planned to pull the economic infrastructure out from German trade, ban German cargos from British holds, and then ignore International Admiralty Law principles on neutral transport of goods to and from Germany. Seizures and sinkings galore.

So, the humble Möwe could conceivably have faced a world without Admiralty Law, and where the British Crown stamped its own novel form of authoritarian rule on the world’s economies and oceans. A rather intriguing alternative history!

wserra: And that is precisely the reason I mourn the fact that no one took up the opportunity to repatriate and restore the SMS Goeben after her most unusual career.

Turning more to the subject of the Quatloos forum, a part of my professional activities involves persons in Canada who adopt tax protestor, Sovereign Citizen, and Freeman-on-the-Land concepts and schemes. I am aware of a fair number of Canadian oddities of that kind which I do not believe have been reported in the Quatloos forum. Would there be an interest in me posting information on these, which I should note often do not neatly fall into the Sovereign Citizen or classic tax protestor forms? There is something of a ‘Hundred Flowers’ phenomenon going on at the moment in Canada where Sovereign Citizen motifs are being re-expressed, particularly in the Freeman-on-the-Land movement, in rather peculiar ways.

Again, thanks for the greetings!

SMS Möwe

I would certainly be interested in more "oddities" from North of the Border!

obadiah wrote:I would certainly be interested in more "oddities" from North of the Border!

Happy to oblige!

Perhaps Quatloos needs an additional forum dedicated to our northern wackadoodles?

Administrators

AndyK wrote:Perhaps Quatloos needs an additional forum dedicated to our northern wackadoodles?

Administrators

The way thing are at the present it would have a Canadian contributor list comprised solely of me unless some fellow Canadians step up to bat with new topics. Hilfskreuzer Möwe clearly knows his way around Canadian jurisprudence having picked up that bankruptcy that I missed and he seems to have an inventory of Canadian topics in reserve that I've not covered or am not aware of. Never heard of the "hundred flower" issue but it sounds intriguing. Maybe it includes this guy?

http://deanclifford.info/

You're losing me as a poster for a while in any case. Starting next week I'm off on a six week European jaunt. So if any other Canadians are lurking in the background with issues to relate it's a good time to surface.

Hilfskreuzer Möwe - Ah, the good old days when Britannia waived the rules.

Burnaby49 wrote:You're losing me as a poster for a while in any case. Starting next week I'm off on a six week European jaunt.

Yes, we don't have the internet in Europe...
Seriously, if you get nearby, we can try to arrange something.

Hilfskreuzer Möwe wrote:
So, the humble Möwe could conceivably have faced a world without Admiralty Law, and where the British Crown stamped its own novel form of authoritarian rule on the world’s economies and oceans. A rather intriguing alternative history!

Are you familiar with Operation Unicorn?